So after having read Thoreau, what parallels do you see in King's text. Furthermore, how does MLK advance a coherent philosophical argument in response to the question of why he obeys some laws but not others. Also how does he argue against those who ask him to "Wait"?
The most notable parallel I found between Thoreau and King’s letter was their criticism of those who support an idea in theory but refuse to take action to aid the cause that they supposedly favor. Thoreau claims that these people are merely patrons of virtue and that there is one truly virtuous man to 99 patrons of virtue. King specifically points out “the white moderate.” They both admit that government is often unjust and the people should be able to inflict changes in their government. Both also warn that a group is liable to greater immorality than a sole person.
ReplyDeleteKing claims that he only follows “just laws,” or laws that are designed following moral law. This moral law adds moral responsibility to the legal duty to obey just laws. An unjust law is not in accordance with morality, and can be any law that degrades a human. He provides the concrete example that an unjust law is implemented by a majority for the minority to obey but not rule the majority as well. If an ordinarily just law is used to oppress a particular group or minority, then it becomes an unjust law.
King argues there is never a wrong time to take action. African-Americans had waited for freedom and equality long enough, and if one simply says “wait” enough it becomes a “never”. The longer that one waits, the greater number of people are harmed by injustices.
In addition I found this quote particularly powerful: “when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people;”
I agree with Marlee-they both radically disagreed with, as Dr. Layne puts it, those whose ideas and action do not match.
ReplyDeleteAs for King, he argues that just laws follow moral and natural law, that is, God's law (incidentally, first articulated by Thomas Aquinas, I think). Unjust laws violate God's law. He argues that we only have to follow just laws, and do good by civilly disobeying unjust laws. Additionally, both King and Thureou advocating disobeying unjust laws, but still accepting the punishment for that violation.
Finally., he tells those who telle him to wait that that argument can always be said. They have waited too long; now is time to act.
Dr. King's message is very simple. It is verbose because, as the saying goes, "prisoners have nothing but time." We are all created equally; so says our Constitution, one of the greatest political documents ever written. However, the implentation of its ideas has been lacking throughout the entire course of its history. Dr. King simply puts forth the idea that just laws are in harmony with the optimal human condition, and unjust laws are out of sync with this optimal condition of peaceful coexistence. This lack of harmony is what he seeks to rectify. Unjust laws are meant to be disobeyed becase the cause of basic human dignity is at stake. Just laws should be obeyed, and, and Dr. King said, we have a moral responsibility to obey them. While I personally disagree with the source of the basic human dignity, I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. King's thesis. He gets his ideas from his religion which is all well and good, but morality is not necessarily linked with any form of supernatural deity. Anyway, disobeying these unjust laws brings the underlying problems to the surface so that they must be dealt with. Peaceful demonstration was his method of enacting his agenda, and it worked beautifully. We can see in history that his message and methods were harmonious and sound.
ReplyDeleteIn arguing against waiting he shows how time is not active but simply is. Time is passive. It moves at constant rate in the same dimensions no matter what else occurs. Time takes no action, so nothing will be solved in time if time is relied upon to solve problems. Dr. King stipulates that something must be done in the time we're given. This is exactly what he and so many others like him have done with the time they were given. Dr. King saw cause that needed a leader; he assumed that role and leas the course of justice and dragged society kicking and screaming into a new era. Civil rights in that sense is an argument that seems to be mostly over in our society, but there are always causes that need champions.
To start MLK's response as to why he follows some laws and not others has to do with the fact that he finds there to be two types of laws. Those that are just and those that are unjust."Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." He claims that a laws that are unjust is not actually laws. Laws are a type a code set forth for moral reasons. Unjust laws are morally wrong therefore cannot be laws. For this reason MLK follows only true laws that have moral law or follow the law of God. An interesting point MLK makes about laws overall is the fact that they are not democratic. How can anything be considered democratic if a large portion of the countries population is refused the right to vote, or have any say in political matters?
ReplyDeleteAddressing the second question, MLK refuses to "wait" for wait has always meant never. For people who have lived their entire lives feeling segregated, they have waited too long and can no longer wait for the "right time". No time will ever be the "right time" to those that do not understand their suffering. Those who live without fear can never understand the pain, and for this reason he refuses to listen to those that tell him to wait.
A part that I found very interesting was where MLK mentions those who do nothing. He claims they are worse then those that hate. "Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection" This idea I find intriguing and in a way I agree. Not trying to be over reaching, but it makes me think of Socrates when he argued that the purpose of being human was to think, and those that make no opinions are not fulfilling their humanly obligations.
Both MLK and Thoreau discuss the importance of taking action against the injustices and immorality in society, but not just any action but the imposition of non-violent pressure. They both argue that this is different from passivity. Thoreau argues that “all men recognize the right of revolution…and to resist the government when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” MLK along the same also points out “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor but it must be demanded by the oppressed.” Here we see that they both argue for a call to action instead of being like the thousands that disagree with something and still don’t do anything about it. These people are just patrons of virtue rather than virtuous human beings.
ReplyDeleteMLK argues that laws should be obeyed not because it is imposed by an authority but based on the morality of the law; what is right. He says that a law that degrades human personality is not only unjust but should not be considered a law in the first place and that it is one’s obligation to disobey these laws.
MLK also says that to “wait” would bring no results except the “preservation of injustice.” He makes a very clear and compelling point that “justice too long is justice denied.” If someone does not stand up and take action (stressing non-violent action) nothing would change for the oppressors would never voluntarily want to change the system in which they experience unearned privileges.
Martin Luther King makes a very interesting point when he says that we have to choose between preferring a “negative peace, merely an absence of tension, to a positive peace, the presence of justice.” Here we see that this positive peace would only come about from breaking those unjust laws and thereby allowing for a more moral society.
MLK begins by explaining that there are just and unjust laws. He continues saying that he "would be the first to advocate obeying just laws." He argues that one's responsibility in obeying laws is not just in legality but also in morality. He goes on to determine the difference between the two. "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law…. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
ReplyDeleteWhen arguing against those who ask him to "wait," he argues that African-Americans have waited long enough. MLK argues that while countries in Asia and Africa are gaining political independence quite rapidly, black Americans struggle to gain fair treatment in restaurants.
The main parallel I see is both of their criticisms of people who say they will do something but cannot back it up with their actions.
ReplyDeleteHe describes a law that is unjust should basically not have to be followed. The law that does not protect a certain people should not be followed by those people because the law itself is not relevant to those people.
He argues that his people have waited for so long and basically have followed lies upon lies that they would get their equal rights. He feels that this frustration has been pent up for too long, and that this was the time to release the frustration in a nonviolent yet direct way.
The most noticeable parallel I found between the two texts actually serves to answer the second question. King can advocate following certain laws while disobeying others because there are two types of laws: just laws and unjust laws. In general, a just law is one that matches legislative code to moral or religious code. An unjust law, on the other hand, is one in which these two codes clash in dissonance. As such, laws that create an "I-it" relationship between two groups, or that are enacted upon one group but not the other, or that are created and enacted by only one group are all examples of unjust laws.
ReplyDeleteAs for those who ask him to "wait," King argues that if one should "wait" long enough, it will eventually manifest into "never." It is no legitimate argument, so says King, that change is "inevitable." Time, simply in passing, does not create action. The examples of the past are null and void, as for any good that has made headway throughout time, evil has made much more efficient use of the same time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA striking parallel between Thoreau and MLK is emphasis on the importance of non-violent civil disobedience. In both text’s the authors state that one should assess the moral quality of a law, and thereby decide whether to obey it. Thoreau describes this as the personal relationship one should strive for in protest and rebellion. MLK uses this idea of civil disobedience to underline non-violence. When one breaks an unjust law, the law becomes a just one. Because of this, the illegal act is morally right. One does not break a law to bring harm or instigate violence but to give a better moral standing for society and maintain one’s own good conscience.
ReplyDeleteA second parallel between Thoreau and MLK is that both authors describe how often people do not match their words and actions. For Thoreau, these were the patrons of virtue v. the virtuous. The patrons of virtue merely advertise virtue but because of extraneous reasons (not the right time, don’t agree with the minor points, or simply aren’t courageous enough to follow through) do not act virtuous. MLK illustrates that for the civil rights movement of the ‘60s, these were the people who believed that the time wasn’t right, that the Negro should wait for a “more convenient season.” These people were MLK’s patrons of virtue.
With this, King argues that they can “Wait!” no longer. He says that if the US waits any longer to address the rising discontent then a grander problem will be on their hands, for the black community will not just be segregated but also become hostile, as it will “seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies—a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.”
King's philosophical discussion comes from his concept of two types of laws. The first, as he describes it, is the set of laws that parallels with the moral code or universal ethics. The second type of laws that are those that are out of sync and dissonant with the universal concepts of morality. This distinguishing difference between the two types of laws is the foundation of King's philosophical argument for why following some laws is okay, but others are not. He does not support anarchy, but rather claims that individuals must refuse to obey unjust laws in loving, open ways, rather than out of hate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to those who argue that he should "wait," he argues that waiting leads to nothing, because the pace has been moving at that of a horse and buggy, and that waiting will not speed up the process, but only put it off further into the distant future. Therefore, action must be taken, but as the last step in the process.
According to MLK, there are two types of laws: just and unjust. MLK believes that one has not only a legal but moral responsibility to obey just laws but also a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He goes on to explain that a just law is, “a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God and an unjust law is code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” In addition, a law that is unjust is one that is imposed on a minority who had no part in enacting or devising the law (they didn’t have the right to vote). Lastly, a law is sometimes, “just on its face but unjust in it’s application.” MLK gives the example of being arrested for parading without a permit. Although this seems like a just law, it is unjust because it is used to prolong segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
ReplyDeleteMLK argues against the word “Wait” because, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” He insists that for all those who have suffered or seen the people close to them suffer because of segregation, waiting shouldn’t even be considered. Waiting at this point would mean never seeing segregation end. To “wait” is to justify the horrific acts associated with segregation.
"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress." MLK and Thoreau directly parallel in their assertion that government is sometimes an inhibitor rather than an enabler. They also share a disdain for those("the white moderate") who see injustice and recognize it as such, while doing nothing about it.
ReplyDeleteMLK claims that any law which goes against moral law, the law of God, is unjust. He goes on to cite St. Thomas Aquinas, who more soundly states, "any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust," and uses Martin Buber and Tillich to give further relevant opinions ( white opinion, might I add) that segregation is unjust. He then goes on to give a "concrete example" of an unjust law. Those which will the minority to do something, who have no such participation in passing the law (since they get no vote) are not just or democratic. A law can also be unjust in its application.
MLK sorts through his definition in an explicit, clear manner. Stating it, backing it up the views of other philosophers, and then giving examples of said injustice in practice.
MLK addresses those who tell him to wait with many valid reasons to do otherwise. First, he states that African-Americans have been waiting for 340 years. Next, by saying that any who are not placed inferiorly could not understand. Until they feel truly oppressed, "when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are)...when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance... then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait."
He makes the observation that no direct action taken by the oppressed was "well-timed" according to the oppressors.
He finds that "Wait!" always means "Never."
MLK refuses to wait as more African-Americans become more rooted in their role as a lesser race. "We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right." He argues that time does not make the inevitably good come about, but more often is used for injustice. Common practice becomes more difficult to refute as it becomes a long term practice and eventually seems to be fact. The just must be fought for. The Christians, who argued to King that they had waited 2000 years for recognition, did not receive recognition by time's hand, but through the hard work of the oppressed.
Thoreau and MLK share multiple parallels in their ideologies. For one, they both encourage individuals to stand up against unjust laws and governments. These two philosophical leaders urge reform and revolution in the face of tyranny. They do not want humanity to sit idly by whilst injustice and tyranny takes over. Furthermore, I think Thoreau would approve in King’s philosophical argument regarding the following of some laws but not others. King draws the distinction between moral laws and immoral ones, just laws and unjust laws, and so forth. Although legally, King is obligated to follow all laws, his morality and sense of righteousness supersedes the legality of laws because laws were created to help humankind instead of hinder it. Thus, King promotes individuals to go against the unjust laws but still uphold the morally correct laws. To overturn such laws, action needs to be taken. Waiting serves as a simple way to prolong the state of injustice, and eventually this waiting will turn into an indefinite period of time. Thus, action must be taken and for the sake of equality and rights, humankind cannot wait for reform to occur without catalyzing it by action.
ReplyDeleteKing and Thoreau are very similar in their definitions of civil disobedience. While Thoreau invests much less in the government, they both believe that there are just laws and unjust laws. The both believe that it is necessary to break some laws in the name of the preservation of justice. Also, King’s “white moderates” are essentially Thoreau’s Massachusetts residents: neither are actively supporting injustice, but they do not marry their words and their deeds. They are apathetic and show weak moral character by residing in the status quo.
ReplyDeleteI felt as I reread this that you must love the structure of King’s letter, Dr. Layne, because it reflects everything you wanted out of our papers. King produces a sound argument by citing the great moral/philosophical pillars of our society: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Sophocles, Jesus Christ.
He obeys just laws, ones that “square with the moral law.” He feels a duty to obey such natural laws, just like he feel a duty to disobey the unjust laws. He also points out that some just laws must be broken in order to fight the unjust laws. My favorite quote from the whole letter, a portrait of his work for the Civil Rights Movement: “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty.” (I think it’s in the “lovingly” part that he and Thoreau differ a little bit).
He responds to the command to “Wait” that the idea that time heals all is a misconception. Time, he believes, has proven itself very neutral. It is what we do with time that matters, and that is why he takes non-violent action.
MLK- There are two kinds of laws: Just laws and unjust laws. Just laws uplift human personality, and unjust laws degrade it. MLK and Thoreau both make it clear that people shouldn't follow laws they believe are unjust. MLK used the phrase "civil disobedience" a few times, referring to the Boston Tea Party and to the Hungarian freedom fighters. He also noted that Hitler's actions were "legal", implying that some laws are clearly unjust and should be questioned.
ReplyDeleteMLK argued against "waiting" for change with a very descriptive paragraph that noted countless hardships that the blacks had to live with every day. He reminded us that African Americans have been "waiting" for equality for over three hundred years, and that clearly the oppressed will only get what they want if they act. "Wait" basically means never. The concept of acting instead of just talking about acting is a parallel between Thoreau and MLK.
Both MLK and Thoreau clearly advocate personal integrity, that is, acting in accordance with what one sees to be the "good". For King, this means actively disobeying any law that is contrary to the "good". The good for King stems from God and his will, it follows that any law that contradicts this "good" must then contradict God's will. Hence it is a grave matter indeed - one worth fighting for.
ReplyDeleteKing was right about peacfully voicing his concern. However, what about the sit-ins? What message did it send to the country? Certainly not that the civil rights movement was after individual rights, but rather the further abridgement of these rights, manifested by the government forcing private owners to serve anyone regardless of their desire to or not to. The movement claimed to be after rights, but if not individual rights, then what rights? Group rights? What is a group, if not several individuals?
Although certain laws were unjust, it appears that often the wrong ones were attacked. Like the right to possess and dispose of one's own property in the way they see fit, in the case of restaurant owners that would only serve whites. But then again, people would probably contest my view of good and bad laws. So I guess, the question is more about how King validates his definition of the "good," and what exactly is a right?
Perhaps an obvious parallel is that both texts are written within the walls of a prison. This may be significant in that it gave both writers such different perspectives from the people on the "outside." Because of this difference in perspectives, both writers seem to know how unjust the government has become, and in turn, how it has affected its citizens. Some ties include the fact that most "privileged" people are unwilling to give up said privilege, tending to adhere to their government not because they think it is just, but because they believe it is the most beneficial to them. As mentioned multiple times above, another parallel between these two texts is that though an individual may seem to think justly, his/her actions would say otherwise. In other words, these individuals can be seen as hypocritical in that they would condemn those who are unjust when they themselves cannot act justly.
ReplyDeleteMLK jr. criticizes that the people who tell him to "wait" always seem to be the ones who have never truly experienced the injustice of segregation. It is easier for those who have not experienced injustice to sit on the sidelines and watch as injustice occurs, telling people to "wait" until something good happens. He argues that if anything "good" were to come from the government, it will have to be from force and action from the people. He says that it is because people have "waited" that America has had to *wait* so long to get where they are where other nations seem to be developing their own running governments at breakneck paces.
Both King and Thoreau understand that if a law unjustly affects one member of society, it compromises the legitimacy of the society itself and threatens to all members, even if it does not actively harm them. They also agree that standing by while unjust laws are enforced is not negative, not morally neutral.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with this and King's opinion that relying on time to solve the problems of society is not acceptable. In fact, by allowing unjust laws to be carried out, one offers a silent approval to those in power and help to establish a negative precedent for injustice.
However, I disagree that one should accept punishments for justly breaking unjust laws, at least from a philosophical perspective. I think the acceptance of an unjust punishment is similar to the acceptance of the unjust law itself. It becomes a kind of martyrdom which is only valuable if it changes public opinion and contributes to the destruction of the law.
However, the practicalities of defying the law AND skirting the punishment are a little more complex, so it may have been logistically and strategically intelligent for Dr. King to accept his punishments, but I do not think that he or his supporters had any inherent morale obligation to do so.
Both Martin Luther King and Thoreau believe that a person had to merge the thoughts and actions. This included following or not following laws which MLK did not follow every rule because some of the rules were unjust. He argues that people continue to wait then the right time will never come to face this problem.
ReplyDelete"After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it" This is Thoreau, but isolated from Civil Disobedience it could easily be applied to MLK. MLK's main goal aims to show the injustice done to the minority (African-Americans) because the majority (whites) is allowed to rule.
ReplyDeleteVery impressed with all your observations and yes Emma I love the structure and style of this essay. It is exactly what I desire from every writer as regardless of the fact that it simply recites some "old truths" its presented in a completely individual/novel way. Thus I walk away from this text having learned something about MLK, the world but also myself.
ReplyDelete